What are the pros and cons of tracking? That's a question that I am frequently asked as I work with school leaders around the country. Instead of answering the question, I ask them a question in return. What do you mean by tracking? Instead of an immediate reply, I invariably get a confused look?

What is tracking?

There are several different forms of grouping, also known as tracking or leveling:

• "Within-class ability grouping" is typically found in elementary schools and not in high schools. One example might be multi-level reading groups.
• "Between-class grouping" - Students spend most of the day in “high,” “middle,” or “low” classes and use the same or similar curricula supported by the same set of standards. Schools often refer to these between-class groupings as "advanced" and "standard" courses.
• "Formal Tracks or Levels" - Students spend most of the day in ability tracks and use curricula substantially adjusted to their ability levels which are often supported by a differing set of standards and expectations.

Many schools and school systems have already or are actively eliminating the third form of grouping students, a system of "formal tracks or levels," because research has shown that this form of grouping actually harms poor, disadvantaged, under-resourced, and struggling learners.

The second method of grouping students--"between class grouping" has been shown to benefit high-achievers but does not have a negative impact on the performance of low-achievers.

My Take On Grouping

I favor an approach that provides two groupings--standard and advanced. Within those two general groupings, schools should provide tiered interventions, which provide additional learning time and support to ensure student mastery of course content. For example, students enrolled in an "advanced" AP course may need additional learning time in the form of after-school tutoring or additional review sessions (tier 2) in order to master course content. Likewise, students in standard English 9 may need additional after-school tutoring or review (tier 2), while some students may need a reading course (tier 3) in addition to their English class.

Students should be able to self-select into standard or advanced courses. In other words, enrollment in advanced or standard courses should be open to all students based on their identified strengths and weaknesses as well as their interests and motivation. For example, a student could be enrolled in and AP English class, but in a standard Algebra II course.

Courses that fall under the "advanced" label could include courses specifically labeled on a local level as "advanced." These advanced courses might include Advanced Algebra I, pre-IB, pre-AP, or Honors. The "gold standard" of advanced courses is the externally moderated courses such as ACT Quality Core, University of Cambridge International Examinations, Advanced Placement, or International Baccalaureate.

Locally labeled advanced courses should never be offered in competition with externally moderated courses. For example, a high school should never offer an Honors Senior English in competition with AP or IB English.

Why not offer locally labeled honors courses in competition with externally moderated advanced courses?

First, most locally labeled advanced courses are not monitored. They are honors in name only. In some cases, these so-called honors courses are merely a way to segregate students because their parents don't want them in classrooms with "those kids." The teacher generally decides the curricula in these locally labeled advanced courses, and there is little or no consistency from classroom to classroom, from teacher to teacher, or from school to school. Unless there is a defined curriculum, accompanied by common formative and summative assessments, there is no way to ensure that honors courses are any more rigorous than standard courses.

Second, advanced courses are offered for advanced, college-bound students. Some parents may complain that externally moderated, AP or IB, courses are too difficult for their child. Allowing students to choose the less rigorous honors course instead of an AP or IB course deludes parents into believing that we are preparing their child for college when we know that all we are doing is placating them and their child. If a student is college-bound, why wouldn't that student be enrolled in the externally moderated course.

Third, generally speaking most AP and IB courses proceed at half the speed of a college course. What takes a year of high school to complete would be undertaken in one semester in college. True, some colleges award more than one 3-hour credit for some AP science courses. Likewise, universities frequently require additional lab time in science courses and they provide additional credit hours for successful completion of that science course and lab. Here is the essential question. If students cannot succeed in a half-speed course in high school, how will they handle a full-speed course only a few months later in college?

The Bottom Line

• Schools need to "push" students to take a rigorous course of study that prepares them to be college and career-ready.
• Labeling courses as advanced to placate parents is tantamount to malpractice.
• Offering honors courses as an alternative to AP or IB courses at the junior and senior level is a big lie. In no way are honors courses preparing students to do college-level work. The only way that I would agree to such a proposal is that these courses were externally moderated. They would have a standard course description and syllabus with accompanying district-wide common and formative assessments, which would make the whole idea very expensive.
• If we really have the best interests of our students in mind, we would ensure that they were adequately prepared to succeed in the most rigorous course that we could offer them.
• Finally, the Common Core State Standards and the accompanying assessments renders "formal tracks or levels," all but obsolete. The adoption of the Common Core State Standards means just that. We now have one common set of standards, which prepare all students to be college and career-ready, and which all students are expected to meet before leaving high school.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:07 AM | Permalink

Meier cites nine reasons why a longer school day (in Chicago) is the wrong approach:

1. Teachers work longer for less per hour.
2. It presumes that teachers do not have work to do after school.
3. It reduces time available for teacher collaboration.
4. It undermines future trust between potential the mayor, and unions.
5. It's not based on any research
6. It plans on using precious time without prior thought (planning).
7. It's not even a job-saving or job-creating plan.
8. Don't some kids (maybe teachers, too) already have after-school obligations.
9. It is surely unlikely to attract more people into teaching and surely not more willing to stay in the classroom.

Learning: It's About Time

The Teacher Leader and I have written at least a dozen posts on the subject of leaning time. Of the three domains that school staff control--learning time, setting, and instructional methods--learning time, we used to call this time-on-task, has at least as much, if not more, impact on student achievement.

Having said that, a longer school day is not the answer. More learning time is the answer. Some students need more time to learn some subjects. Some students need more time reading, while others would benefit from more math instruction. Some students need a longer school day. Some need a longer school week. Some need a longer school year. Of the three, and extended school year (summer school) for a portion of the students is the most effective.

Learning is a process, a life long process at that. Learning is not a sprint. A longer school day views learning as a "let's get it over with" mentality. A longer school day is about the ABCs--administration by convenience. This is about adult convenience, not student learning.

Why not look at an extended school year through the eyes of a college student. College students go to summer school to get ahead, to catch up, or to remediate. Why not K-12 students?

The other benefit of an extended year for some students is that it sends the message to the student that mastery is not only an expectation, but mastery is a must. "You will keep working "until"--until you master this content event if it takes you more time."

This thinking requires a departure from the "assembly line" thinking of the past and demands that we begin treating each student as an individual learner who needs a customized learning plan.

A customized plan for each child can be done no additional cost. However, it cannot be done at the convenience of the adults. In fact, an individual learning plan is very inconvenient and often complicated, but this approach pays big dividends in relation to increased student achievement, improved student behavior, and happy, energized teachers.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:46 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

On August 31 “NBC Nightly News” Brian Williams moved into a commercial break with a tease of his next segment.  “As more and more school districts are moving to a four-day week, parents are asking, ‘What are we supposed to do with our kids on that extra day?’.”  While enduring two minutes of upbeat advertising for medications to lessen the impact of a variety of hideous diseases, I was extremely upset.  “Good grief, the school week is being cut to four days and the number one parental concern is daycare,” I thought to myself.

When the actual story unfolded it quickly became apparent that it would exceed my worst fears.   The actual focus of the piece was a series of comments by educators praising the benefits of the abbreviated school week.  A principal at an Oregon high school explained that due to budget problems the district had moved to four longer days of school in lieu of the traditional five-day week.   He was quick to point out that the students would be in school the same number of hours and not to fear that any taxpayer money was being wasted teachers were required to come to work on Fridays to do planning.  He then began to explain how student performance was improving under the new plan.  “It’s a paradox, less is more, less is more for these kids’ learning.”  The piece continued with several more references to how this seemingly contradictory set of circumstances was a positive for the students in the system.   In another school system preparing to move to the shortened week, an educational leader explained that this change was not about saving money but rather improving education.

A defiance of logic and reason

Perhaps these folks have never heard of the “Hawthorne Effect” where individuals tend to improve their immediate performances as the result of increased attention or change whether it is positive or negative.   Arguing that the addition of another day away from school will result in improved academic performance is ignoring the fundamentals.  Assuming that these high schools are on block scheduling (if not imagine an adolescent taking seven classes every day over a ten-hour period) the four-day week would have the typical student taking a math course on Monday and Wednesday and then setting that curriculum aside until five days later on the next Monday.  Throw in a holiday and there will be nearly a week between classes.  The same problems would exist for any discipline requiring retention of skills such as foreign language or music.

There would be equal problems for after school activities.  Picture trying to whip a marching band into shape after a school day that has lasted from 7:30 in the morning until 5:30 that evening?  Would dinner be served before or after rehearsal?

Research shows that human beings have limited attention spans.  For teenagers those numbers can usually be cut in half.  Going back to that class schedule, how academically effective would an extra 25 minutes be in those 115-minute blocks?  And who would want to be teaching osmosis or how a bill becomes a law in hours nine and ten of that elongated school day?

Finally, the principal in the story announced that attendance at his school had also improved.  That can happen when you reduce the number of days by 20%.

The much bigger question

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the financial circumstances facing states and communities are going to improve in the near future.  More and more difficult budget decisions are going to be required.  If the past is any indication, much of that burden will be placed on education.  Such a course of action is wrong; making arguments that it will make learning better is worse.  The current unemployment numbers reveal the folly of this approach.  The correlation between employment and education is clear.  Individuals without a high school diploma are three times as likely to be jobless than someone with a degree.  The core problem in this country is not a lack of work; it is a lack of appropriately trained workers.

Taking the wrong path

To perfect one’s serve in tennis which approach would be better—practicing one hour a day, seven days a week or just hit the ball for seven hours on Monday and take the next six days off?   The better path is obvious.  Those folks in Oregon and the more than 100 other communities that have moved to a four-day week seem to believe that the truncated school week is a model for improving their schools.  It is not.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:15 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Teaching is a tough, time consuming job.  I knew a high school English teacher who would periodically have to take a day of sick leave for the purpose of grading an overwhelming amount of student work.  With a pair of grocery bags crammed full of essays in hand, he would leave the building provisioned to spend the next day at home pouring over a huge pile of papers for hours.  This ritual would occur at least four times a year.

For most teachers at my former school, the concept of “contract” time was laughable.  Technically the workday began at 7:15 a.m. and ended at 2:45 p.m.  However, the faculty parking lot was always half full by 6:15 a.m. and anyone arriving after 7:00 was hard pressed to find a spot. Even when I left school as late as 5:00 p.m., dozens of cars were still there.  Suffice it to say, a high-school teaching schedule is a full-time job.  Anything that reduces the amount of time available to undertake that task robs individuals of the ability to perform at their maximum level.

With those factors in mind, Mel Riddile has raised a concern about the persistent practice of assigning teachers extra-duties.  He quotes the superintendent of a large school system who is trying to intervene on behalf of teachers who are being overwhelmed with an escalating series of tasks that detract from their primary job of educating.  This is a legitimate concern that continues to have a negative impact on the academic success of schools.

It is not a new problem

This unfortunate tug-of-war between administrators and teachers has been a perennial problem.  It has been the root cause of much of the tension that exists among the two groups.  From the teacher’s perspective there is a sense that the administrative team does not trust them to use non-class time appropriately.  In addition, many of the tasks assigned are viewed as not being part of their job description.  Finally, in this era of high accountability, most teachers feel there is not enough time to both teach effectively and perform other non-educational chores. 

One example of this conflict occurred when my former district expanded the school day from six to seven periods.   The additional class would afford students an opportunity to take four additional classes during their high school careers.  Though the school day was to be lengthened by about thirty minutes, the vast majority of teachers were comfortable with the longer work day.  They assumed they would continue to teach five classes, work with the same number of students for virtually the same amount of time.  The additional period would give the master schedule more flexibility and could offer an increased number of interesting and unique courses.  The expanded school day would be offset by a second planning period which would allow more opportunities for collaborative planning, preparation and grading. 

Unfortunately, the policy makers saw the new schedule differently.  In a move that clearly indicated that they felt teachers could not be trusted with this new “additional” time the “Individual Professional Responsibility” (IPR) was born.   The IPR was a requirement that teachers spend one of those “off” periods engaged in tasks assigned by the local administrative team.  These responsibilities included cafeteria duty, working in the attendance office and returning used library books to their proper place on the shelves.  For several years every teacher in the building would not only be required to perform such mundane tasks, they had to log in their time and give written explanations of precisely how they had spent their IPR time.  To the teachers the entire process conveyed a message that if unsupervised they would simply use non-class time to drink coffee and read the newspaper in lieu of academic pursuits.  Mercifully, thanks to the hard work of some enlightened principals this practice died out over time, although I am not sure it was ever officially terminated.  But the misguided perception that expanding a teacher’s job description has no impact on their classroom work still exists.

Replacing one bad idea with another

 While the IPR faded, there were plenty of other items to take up extra time.  Initiatives were being introduced that would reduce a teacher’s ability to focus on their students.  District programs to monitor student progress (e-Carte and Abacus) were mandated activities - even though they were inferior to the assessment tools already in use at the school.  The staff had a difficult choice.  They could either stop using approaches that had been proven effective or perform the same analysis twice to meet district requirements.  And, of course, all such programs came with lengthy training.  Poorly conceived staff development and unnecessary faculty meetings added to the problem.   What was most frustrating for the teachers was the total disconnect from the inordinate amount of time already being spent on important non-classroom activities such as parent conferences, faculty and department meetings, after school extra-curricular activities, evaluation discussions, recertification requirements, reviewing textbooks, etc.  There was scant recognition that there were already plenty of “extra” duties to fill in any excess time.

The next big thing

The most ominous current demand on teachers concerns remediation of students who are performing poorly on standardized tests.  Ironically, the same superintendent who wanted to ease the pressure on teachers has also requested that his state’s barrier exams be administered earlier in the year with the burden of remediating those who fail to be left to the teachers in an unspecified and unfunded manner.  It is a plan that sounds suspiciously like more extra duty.

It is time to reassess the components of a typical teacher workday.  From the view of both the teacher and administrative staffs the focus must be on finding ways to best utilize the time of every staff member to better serve the academic performance of the student body.  Finding ways to keep staff members occupied with duties that do not move toward that goal is unacceptable.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:58 PM | Permalink

Background: The Washington Examiner reports that "Fairfax County (VA) Superintendent Jack Dale is planning to tell principals to ease teachers' workloads outside the classroom, following months of complaints from school employees who say they're overworked and overwhelmed."

I was attending a principals’ meeting held in a neighboring high school. When the meeting ended, I walked through the halls to the rear of the school where my car was parked. At the end of the hall sat a teacher. I exchanged greetings and asked her what she was doing. She explained that it was lunchtime and that she was assigned to sit there every day to prevent students from leaving the cafeteria area and walking through the halls and disturbing classes. I said jokingly, “You should come to our school. Our teachers don’t have hall duty. They used to, but we learned how to train fleas.” “Train fleas,” she asked?

Flea Trainers

I explained to her that if you put fleas in a jar (an old Zig Ziglar story) and put the lid on, and later removed the lid, the fleas wouldn’t jump out, because they were trained that, if they tried to jump out, they would bump their heads on the lid. She laughed. I went on to explain that for years our teachers were assigned to stand or sit in the hallways during lunch to prevent students from walking the halls, but one of the things that I am proudest of was how we dramatically cut extra duties for our teachers. I wanted our teachers to focus on teaching not hall duty.
With a confused look on her face, the teacher asked me how we kept the kids out of the halls. “Easy,” I said. As certified flea trainers, we replaced the teacher with a sign that read “No Students Beyond This Point.” We replaced the teachers with a sign, and guess what? After a “getting-used-to-it” period where we had to patrol the hallways, we received excellent cooperation from the students and there were no more students in hallways than when the teachers sat on guard duty.

Mixed Messages

Shortly after arriving at the school I decided that, if we wanted our teachers to focus on teaching, we had to show them that their time should be spent focusing on teaching. It was a mixed message to say, on one hand that teaching was the most important work in our school, and turn right around and assign teachers to numerous non-teaching duties. So, we removed teacher duties, including lunch, and what our district referred to as “extra-duty assignments,” which were actually part of the teachers’ contracts. I decided to unilaterally eliminate those assignments to give teachers more planning time.

The Bottom Line

Raising the achievement of each and every student is not easy and certainly not convenient. Even when we focus one hundred percent of our time on teaching and learning, we still have a long way to go. Leading schools today is not like it used to be. It's not about the ABCs (Administration By Convenience). It is convenient to assign teachers to extra duties, but we must recognize that doing so dissipates the energies of our teachers and detracts from our true mission--teaching and learning.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:48 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Many school districts have decided to have remediation sessions during the school day. This approach adversely impacts the vast majority of students and needs to be replaced.

“There is no limit to what you learn about schools if you listen to teachers.”   When I saw this opening sentence to a recent article by Jay Mathews in the Washington Post I was pleased to see that he and I were in agreement on a valuable but underutilized source of educational information.  Those pleasant thoughts quickly faded into the background, however, as I continued to read.   Mr. Mathews’ teacher-based information was concerning a district-wide plan for high school “recess” and one school’s implementation.  I soon found myself muttering “What in the world are they thinking?”

In theory the initiative is simple.  In an effort to decrease failures on end-of-course barrier exams in May, the school day is interrupted twice a week for 45 minutes to allow students to do independent work.  Unfortunately the actual results appear to be missing their intended target.  According to one teacher in the building “…students get 90 free minutes a week, which they can use to find dates for Saturday night or check basketball scores if they want…(too many are) socializing, surfing the Internet or - I am not kidding - watching TV in the cafeteria, all during the school day when parents assume their children are in class.”

The principal of the school has a different take saying “most students do homework, work on group projects or enrich their studies. It helps teachers to be creative…even if some students just look for imaginative ways to goof off.”

Even if the truth lies somewhere in between these two views, the overall plan would seem to be counterproductive and not the best approach to solving the proposed problem.  On average only 10% of the student body at this school fail the exams in question.   In a free-form activity period a significant portion of this group does not utilize the time effectively.  Based on administrative data these sessions have reduced the number of “D” and “F” grades by about one-third.  That number would translate into a benefit for a little less than four percent of the student body.  Meanwhile 90 minutes of dedicated class time has been lost each week for the other nine out of ten students.

Far too precious to waste

For months both Mel Riddile and I have written about the importance of providing students and teachers adequate time.  On numerous occasions the discussion has focused on the need to expand the school day, week and year.  And yet this district has decided to reduce class time in an attempt to assist a very small and in many cases reluctant portion of the student community. 

The teacher in the article has calculated that the missing 90 minutes each week translates into a loss of ten days of school.  While removing the equivalent of two weeks of instructional time will have severe adverse effects on many students in actuality the outcomes are even worse.   An extensive unsupervised break in the middle of a school day will destroy momentum and focus in the typical classroom.  Ask any teacher what happens after a fire alarm, pep rally or school assembly.  What they will tell you is that it takes a significant amount of time to get many of their students back on task.   Such hidden costs are inevitable after a 45-minute “recess”.

A better approach for all

For nearly a decade my former school had a very different method for remediating students in the four core subject areas.  We developed the After School Academic Program (ASAP).   It was a plan that was voluntary for teachers and mandatory for students.  A measure of the success of ASAP was the fact that nearly 90% of all eligible teachers participated and many in non-core subjects requested the opportunity to be included.  Parents would call guidance counselors to request that their children be part of the program.  Perhaps the ultimate positive statement was made by those students who requested to remain in ASAP even after their grades had improved sufficiently to allow them to depart. 

The plan was not complicated.  Teachers would target failing students who would benefit from an additional thirty to forty-five minutes of after school instruction each week.  Individuals who were receiving poor grades for attendance or discipline issues would be excluded since this program would not address their specific needs.  A list of students was compiled and an administrator would assign each student to an afternoon session that would begin within fifteen minutes of the end of the day.

Late buses were provided to give transportation home if needed and all extra-curricular activities could not begin until ASAP concluded.   The consequences for not attending—administrative detention (no teacher involvement)—were consistent, enforced and effective.  The program was conducted within teacher contract time. 

Any similar approach would be vastly superior to the one described in Mr. Mathews’ article.  All students and teachers would benefit from the return of those missing 90 minutes.  The students who need extra attention from the staff would be the recipients of an additional period of focused instructional time.  The school day would be molded to better fit the needs of the entire student body. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 07:52 PM | Permalink

"Truancy is a nationwide epidemic and the old tools don't work."--Travis Knox, President of AIM Truancy Solutions

Desperate to improve student attendance, schools are now using GPS devices to track truant students. According to a recent report schools in Baltimore, Philadelphia, Kentucky, Kansas and California "have resorted to fitting students with hand-held GPS devices the size of a cellphone." Parents must voluntarily agree to have their child receive a phone call each morning reminding them to go to school on time. In addition, the student is required to enter a code to track their location five times each day.

Early reactions indicate that the program is having a positive effect. With a few exceptions parents agreed to allow their child to participate.

Miss school and you miss out. That was the message that we continually conveyed to our students. Turning around a low-performing school or improving the performance of under-resourced students often means improving student attendance and reducing truancy.

When we began our effort years ago, our average student missed over nineteen days of school each year. We knew that, unless we could improve attendance, we would have little chance of raising student performance.

There is no simple solution to improving attendance. It takes a lot of hard work. Improving attendance can only be done one student at a time and it means doing everything possible to encourage students to attend regularly.

Wake-up calls mean we care

Years ago our school began using a hand-me-down roto-dialer to make daily wake-up calls to our most frequently absent students. Like those in the aforementioned pilot programs, we found little parent resistance. In fact, we had parents of students with good attendance request that their child be put on the call list, because they left early for work and they wanted to make certain that their child arrived at school on time.

Shortly after the program began, a student walked up to me and said, "At first, I didn't like getting the calls, but I am a senior and this is the first time that I felt like the school actually wanted me to be here every day.

Surveys of school dropouts cite the most frequently given reason for dropping out was that no one at the school cared if they attended.

Persistence Pays Off

Wake-up calls were only one part of our efforts to improve student attendance. We learned that our students would regularly attend a safe, orderly, clean, and inviting school, particularly if the students felt that the teachers sincerely wanted them to succeed.

We also learned that the best way to change student behavior was to change our own behavior. Doing the same things the same way would not make the school more inviting. We had to do a lot of soul-searching. We had to change our expectations, and make some painful changes in our grading and homework policies.

Everyone in the school played a key part. Through the tireless efforts of the staff we were able to reduce the annual absence rate from nineteen days per student to less than eight days per student.

Schools Need Support

The challenges faced by schools in their attempt to encourage regular student attendance clearly points out the flaws in our accountability system. Schools, teachers, and principals are held personally accountable for student performance when they have no influence or control over attendance laws or their enforcement. In far too many instances, enforcement of attendance laws is non-existent. Students literally show up when they feel like it.

In the same way, schools in many states rely totally on the good will of their students to put forth their best effort on state assessments because their is absolutely no consequence for students who do poorly. Students can literally "Christmas-tree" a state assessment and nothing happens.

The careers of teachers and administrators as well as the reputation of the school and the school district depended on the good will of the students. If they don't feel like taking the test, there is no consequence.

From experience I have learned that unless everyone—students, teachers, administrators, schools, and school districts-- is held accountable for student performance, there is not true accountability. Unless everyone is working together toward a common goal, we have no accountability system. Instead, we have a system that scapegoats those who work in schools.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 07:37 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Nearly a year ago I wrote about the importance of little things in education.  These adjustments were minor, no-cost changes that could improve the academic environment of a school.  The discussion at that time focused on utilizing classrooms to minimize teacher movement, avoiding surprise disruptions in the daily schedule, balancing the size of the grading periods and limiting the number of teacher preparations. Recently, I have come to realize there may be a need to update the list. 

These colors do run

Throughout a school year, there are days that will be lost to special events.  One such occasion occurred at my former school the year after I retired.  Because Veterans Day was not a district holiday, an event was designed for parents to visit the building and have the opportunity to meet with teachers on a first-come, first served basis.  It was an overwhelming success. For more than three hours the entire staff assembled in the gymnasium and parents had the unique opportunity to have an in-depth discussion of the progress of their children.  The only problem with the program was its negative impact on classes. The school’s normal block schedule had alternating “red” (periods 1-3-5-7) and “blue” (2-4-5-6) days. (Fifth period was a daily, embedded lunch class)  Unfortunately, the regular red-blue-red schedule was kept in place and as a result the blue, parent’s day was an instructional loss.  Now facing what was in essence two consecutive red days the teachers had to make a difficult decision.  They could either do little on the second red day or have their blue day students fall behind. 

The need for such decisions could have been avoided.  The previous year when the November 11 date for this event was already established, a non-color day should have been planned that would include the parental meetings, lunch and a creative use of the remaining two hours.  November 10 would stay red, November 12 goes blue and everything remains orderly.  The fact that this was not the case the first year is understandable.  Adapting to new circumstances takes time.  What is not acceptable is to continue to fail to make the necessary corrections resulting in the same loss of class time year after year.

Someone needs to be paying attention

Every year there are a number of events such as this parent’s day, PSAT testing and special assemblies that severely impact class schedules.  Smaller activities including fire drills, class meetings, pep rallies and honor roll parties need to be considered as well.  The obvious solution is to anticipate and prepare for such educational disruptions. But in the fragmented world of the administrative staff where the job descriptions are multiple, diverse and often unexpected, dealing with these problems can be difficult.  At my school the solution was to have a staff member oversee all such concerns.  For more than a decade, fixing these educational potholes was a part of my workday.   Each spring I would look at the upcoming school calendar and find ways to lessen these conflicts.  During the school year, I would be asked to evaluate the timing of the smaller events.  Being a classroom teacher gave me the perspective to recognize potential trouble spots.  Then working with the administrative team, a viable solution would be created.             

One example of such planning was the “Multi-Cultural Awareness Assembly,” which was designed to celebrate the diversity of our student body.  The problem was that our auditorium could only seat half of the school and the program was lengthy.  Whatever day it was scheduled was going to be devoid of academics.  Consequently, we decided to present it on the last day before winter break.  Coming just before a long vacation, the loss of the teaching day was muted and more parents were able to attend.  Also, the faculty was advised of the plan well in advance and was given both a clear explanation of why these decisions had been made and an opportunity to give their own input. 

Similar cooperation was used to minimize the problems caused by mandatory fire drills.  The principal agreed to schedule these events in a manner to avoid an unbalanced impact on classes.  The school security officer and I would look at the monthly school calendar to choose the best dates and time.  For example, if a pep rally was going to shorten an afternoon blue day period, any drill that occurred during that time frame would be held in the morning of a red day.  Similar care was taken with Honor Roll parties, class meetings and other worthy but time-consuming events.  The effectiveness of any of these activities was never lessened.  The only item diminished was the negative impact on the overall educational process.

Not perfection, just a little bit better

Teachers are a prickly lot.  They do not like surprises, are angered by disruptions, and absolutely loath surprise disruptions.  The best believe time with their students is sacred.  There are, however, a number of very important activities within a school year that are not focused on the curriculum and will reduce class time.  The task is to find a way to blend all aspects of a school in a manner that maximizes the success of each individual endeavor while minimizing the negative impact on the whole. With a significant amount of advanced planning, cooperation and focus, approaches can be taken which will meet this challenge. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 06:44 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In any conversation about education, the views of Bill Gates should be given serious consideration.  Unlike many of the other high profile people engaged in this ongoing discussion, his thoughts are not influenced by any professional involvement.  Gates does not have a job description to fulfill as does Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.  He does not have to speak for teachers like Randi Weingarten.  He is not a politician, has no profit motive, or even a former career in education to protect.  What he does have is a sincere interest, a powerful commitment and the necessary resources to make competent judgments on the subject.  Consequently when I saw an article about him in a recent issue of Parade Magazine I decided it was a must read.  One of the most interesting aspects of this discussion was his opinion of the qualities of a good teacher.    

Simple but compelling

When asked why there are so many bad teachers and not enough great ones in American public schools Gates replied:

“Very little is invested in understanding great teaching. We've never had a meaningful evaluation system that identifies the dimensions of great teachers so we can transfer the skills to others. The Gates Foundation has learned that two questions can predict how much kids learn: ‘Does your teacher use class time well?’ and, ‘When you're confused, does your teacher help you get straightened out’?”

I found the two questions posed by the Gates Foundation very intriguing.  In my experience with teacher evaluations, the process was exclusively top down – in other words, from the perspective of the teachers and administrators. There would be an evaluator who solicits information from the teacher such as classroom goals and objectives.  This person then attends classes to observe what activities or actions actually do occur.  The evaluation concludes with a discussion of the relevant information with the teacher. 

The Foundation questions, on the other hand, were from the viewpoint of the classroom consumer—the student.  And based on their research the responses were strong indicators of the level of student learning.  Since this outcome is the ultimate goal of education it would seem that some use of this resource would be appropriate.  While student input cannot replace the evaluation process, it could bring into the procedure a group of individuals who have a unique perspective on the work of the teacher. Though the two questions mentioned by Gates are very simple, they have proven to be a strong indicator of student learning.  Expanding on those inquiries might provide a method to define the basic ingredients of successful teaching.  Below I have incorporated them into a ten-part student questionnaire. 

1. Does your teacher use class time well?  (Gates)
2. When you are confused, does your teacher help you get straightened out?  (Gates)
3. Do you believe that your teacher wants you to succeed?
4. Do you think the teacher is fair and consistent?
5. Does your teacher have a broad knowledge of the subject?
6. Does your teacher sincerely care about the subject?
7. Do you believe your teacher enjoys teaching?
8. Do you feel that your teacher will spend extra time to ensure that you learn?
9. Do you look forward to going to this class?
10. Do you listen to what is being said by the teacher during class?

My question for you is this—what should be added to or subtracted from this list?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 12:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

"They’ll have better attendance, wreck fewer cars and be more agreeable. All we have to do is let high school students sleep in."

You know a school or a school district is in trouble when the strategic plan follows the principles of the ABC School of School Management--Administration By Convenience.  One of the best indicators of an adult-focused environment, one that is practicing the principles of ABC, is when research is blatantly ignored in favor of current practice. Last year I wrote, "At a time when the focus is on firing principals and teachers, here is an easy way to raise student performance by as much as 10%. Your start time dramatically impacts academic achievement, behavior, motivation, and student engagement. I pointed to a student-developed video that continues to be true "conversation starter."

A reader wrote me saying, "When my family moved out of the DC area, we went from a 7:20 high school start time to an 8:20 high school start time. My older kids had a VERY hard time with 7:20; my son, in particular, had a body clock that just wouldn't let him sleep before midnight. Now, my younger kids handle the 8:20 high school start time with no trouble at all. That hour has made all the difference in the world. If school bus routes are truly running these start-time decisions, then flipping elementary and high school times is perfect. Of course, those parents who use elementary school as a convenient day care would have trouble with the switch--but those problems should not be allowed to override brain science."

Science says, "Let them sleep."

Today, so-called experts insist that schools use research-based strategies to teach students. Those same experts consciously turn their backs on research that would be inconvenient for them to implement.

The consensus in the field — informed by a large Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey of American teens — is that adolescents need about nine hours and 15 minutes of sleep a night. Most get less. "Teens are caught in a tug of war between their biology and rules and schedules put in place by adults. Biology is losing."

In Nurtureshock: New Thinking About Children, author Po Bronson points out a number of key scientific facts relating to teens, sleep, and achievement:

• 60% of high schoolers report extreme daytime sleepiness.
• 25% of high school students report that their grades have dropped due to lack of sleep.
• Between 20% and 33% of high school students are "falling asleep in class at least once a week."
• "Children--from elementary school through high school--get an hour less sleep each night than they did thirty years ago.
• Loss on one hour of sleep has been proven to impact academic performance, emotional stability, obesity, and ADHD.
• "The performance gap caused by an hour's difference in sleep was bigger than the gap between a normal fourth-grader and a normal sixth-grader. Which is another way of saying that a slightly sleepy sixth-grader will perform like a mere fourth-grader. A loss of one hour of sleep is the equivalent to (the loss of) two years of cognitive maturation and development."
• Loss of sleep can "impair children's IQ as much as lead exposure."
• "Tired children cannot remember what they just learned."

Over the span of my career, I have heard many a colleague attribute bad student behavior to hormones. However, when it comes to actually applying science to address hormones, adult convenience again prevails. "A Day in the Life of a Sleepy Student," points out that "hormones play a role. Our brains produce the hormone melatonin as they prepare to sleep. Synthetic forms are sold over the counter as a sleep aid. (Mary) Carskadon found that melatonin levels in adolescents don’t rise until about 10:30 p.m. Sending your teen to bed at 10 is likely to lead to tossing and turning but not much sleep until the body agrees it is time. If a child who can’t sleep until 11 p.m. needs to rise at 6 a.m. to catch a bus, that provides just seven hours of sleep — two hours less than the average adolescent needs."

Minneapolis, which moved high school start times from 7:15 a.m. to 8:40 a.m. during the 1997-98 school year is a rich source of data on the difference schedules make in teen health and achievement. Scientists at the University of Minnesota did extensive research on the effects and found the following:

• Students report fewer signs of depression than peers with earlier start times. Attendance improved.
• Student transfers dropped.
• Kyla Wahlstrom of the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement at the University of Minnesota in an analysis of the schedule change. “Having a later start for the first hour of class appears to enable more students to not oversleep and to arrive at school on time.”
• Academic performance improved.
• Participation in sports and activities remained the same.
• Principals reported fewer discipline issues.
• A reduction in the number of students seeking help with relationship problems
• Parents reported that students were easier to live with.
• Students did not stay up later at night. 10:45 was the typical reported bed time.
• Most slept an additional hour each night.

According to Colleen Shaddox’s story titled “Delaying School Start Times Causes Alarm” , while some schools have acknowledged the science and moved back high school start times, the reason many more have not "lies in a mix of logistics and politics.

The Bottom Line

I spent my first 28 years in education with a 7:20 start time. For my last two years I moved to a school that had an 8:30 start time. I can personally attest to the fact that one hour made a huge difference in the mood of the students and staff. They were awake! If I had the choice, I would never go back to the earlier start time. The argument that I most often hear in support of the early start time is sports and activities. As the Minneapolis study found, student participation in sports and activities was not adversely affected by the later start time. In fact, in my last year, our boys' basketball team won the state championship.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Ask any educational reformer for a list of the most critical problems in our schools today and the topic of student attendance will inevitably be found near the top.  The logic is simple—if you are not there, you are not going to learn.  But based on a recent Education Week article by Hedy Chang the solutions to this long-term problem may be far more complicated than many would expect.  Ms. Chang presents five significant myths about student attendance that should give everyone in education pause.   Here are the misconceptions that she believes are inhibiting some real solutions to the problem.

Students don’t start missing a lot of school until middle or high school.

National research has determined that 10% of all kindergarten and first-graders miss at least a month of school each year.  In some places, such as New York City, the number of students is twice as high.  Obviously the vast majority of these absences are excused—children at this age are unlikely to be staying home without some parental supervision.  According to Ms. Chang the ramifications are potentially immense:  “…the bad attendance habits that lead to skipping school can become entrenched in the early years.”

Absences in the early grades don’t really affect academics.

Not surprisingly studies show that chronically absent kindergarten students do not perform as well in the first grade as those who were consistently present.  It is not unusual to have these deficiencies continue throughout elementary school.  Perhaps one of the most compelling arguments was found in Chicago where the attendance of ninth-graders proved to be a better predictor of drop outs than eighth-grade test scores.

Most schools already know how many students are chronically absent.

Ms. Chang laments that most school data concerning absences only revolve around the total school attendance patterns and “unexcused” absences.  Consequently many individuals who are missing large portions of class time remain under the educational radar.  As she points out “an elementary school of 400 students can have 95 percent of its students showing up every day and yet still have 60 children missing 18 days—or 10 percent of the school year.”

There’s not much that schools can do to improve attendance; it’s up to the parents.

While certainly the traditional path of parental involvement and truant officers needs to be taken, there are often unique concerns that an individual school can incorporate into their programs.  Ms. Chang relates that many causes of chronic absenteeism can be mitigated.  She speaks of Muslim students missing classes during Ramadan for fear of sitting in the cafeteria during these days of fasting.  Other schools had problems resulting from parents who were shift workers and were not awake when their children should have been leaving for school.  Another group that missed too many days was those in homeless shelters.  In each of these cases the affected schools found solutions. One brought in a Muslim counselor and a separate room for these students during the lunch period.  For parents who slept during the day, a school opened the building early to allow parents to drop off their children after work and before going to bed.  

The Federal government has no role in reducing chronic absenteeism.

Test scores may be important but one of the major reasons for poor test scores is bad attendance.  Ms. Chang believes that the federal government should be requiring statistics on chronic absenteeism as well as truancy and test scores.  School improvement can be measured by improved attendance.

The Bottom Line

Successful teaching cannot begin until students are regularly attending class.  Every day that is missed is a lost opportunity regardless of whether the absence is excused or not.  Consequently strategies need to be created to maximize student presence. At my former school the administrative team recognized the importance of this problem and employed a number of techniques to reduce “excused” absences.  When many Muslim students were leaving early on Fridays for prayer, the principal met with officials from the mosque and arranged for a parent volunteer to come to the building during lunch to hold the sessions in the school.  For students who were chronically absent, an automated callout system was used to make 6:00 a.m. wake-up calls to these specific homes.  But as Ms. Chang has written, too many times such innovations are being implemented too late in the process.  These kinds of interventions need to occur at the very beginning of a student’s education.

For every elementary school the overriding need is to acknowledge that all absences -excused or unexcused - are detrimental. They have both short- and long-term negative consequences.  A culture establishing excellent attendance must be created in the earliest grades.  To that end, careful and consistent attention must be given to the analysis of the attendance record of each individual student not just school-wide data.  Every reason given for missing school should be examined and methods devised to prevent them from becoming chronic. If such an approach is started in the primary years, the continuation of such policies at the high school level will become far more effective.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:05 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In a recent op-ed article in the Washington Post, Robert J. Samuelson documented the failure of educational reform for the past four decades.  He presents a compelling collection of data that clearly demonstrates that much of the innovation done in this country has been totally ineffectual.  Some of this information included:

The highly reliable National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) testing scores shows an educational system that is flat-lining.  In 1971, the first year of this testing, the average reading scores (range 0-500) for seventeen-year-olds was 285.  Thirty-seven years later that number was 286.  In the same two years math scores moved from 304 to 306.   A few quick calculator keystrokes reveal that in nearly four decades reading and math scores for our students have improved by a grand total of 0.3% and 0.6% respectively. 

Mr. Samuelson then reveals some surprising statistics.  During that same time period the percentage of teachers has increased by almost 800% when compared to the additional number of students (61% more teachers; 8% more students).  Not surprisingly student-teacher ratios have plummeted.  In 1955 this comparison stood at 27 to 1; in 2007 each teacher on average had fifteen students.  Even the image of the underpaid teacher is a tough sell—in 2008 the average teacher earned $53,230.  While this wage hardly translates into great wealth it is equally far removed from poverty.  Finally, the number of students in preschool has seen a nearly five-fold increase from 11% to 53%. 

Mr. Samuelson closes his argument by stating that the ultimate reason for the lack of improvement is a dearth of student motivation.  Too many adolescents do little work in high school and a significant number need remedial work in both reading and math when entering either a community college or a four-year institution.  And as illustrated by his data, teacher pay, student-teacher ratios, and mandatory standardized tests have scant impact on this shortcoming.  But the writer saves his harshest criticism for those in charge of reform:

“Against these realities, school ‘reform’ rhetoric is blissfully evasive. It is often an exercise in extravagant expectations. Even if George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind program had been phenomenally successful (it wasn't), many thousands of children would have been left behind. Now (Secretary of Education Arne) Duncan routinely urges ‘a great teacher’ in every classroom. That would be about 3.7 million "great" teachers -- a feat akin to having every college football team composed of all-Americans. With this sort of intellectual rigor, what school ‘reform’ promises is more disillusion.”

Changes that make a difference

Mel Riddile and I have written at length about our concerns with the current structure of public education in the United States and potential adjustments that could improve the system.  As Mr. Samuelson has aptly demonstrated throwing meaningless platitudes and feel-good non-solutions has not made any discernable difference.  Significant improvement demands equally significant change.  If there is to be any major advancement, here are four places to start:

Lengthen the school year.  Learning must become a year-long activity.  How many other important, sequential endeavors take a break of thirteen weeks after thirty-nine weeks of work?  Will paying teachers for 240 days instead of 190 cost more money?  Absolutely, but the educational gains both in student performance and the retention and development of the staff will be more than worth it.  How many extra dollars are spent every year due to failure?

Expand the school week.  Use Saturdays for remediation and extra contact time.  Lengthen the school day to eight or more hours.  Remove distractions—athletic programs should become community activities.  Get educational institutions out of the sports business.  The academic standards currently in place to participate could be maintained but far too much educational time is given to these events.  I loved being a long-time football and tennis coach but if we are really serious about improving our students’ academic achievement we must narrow our focus.

Remove poor teachers.  The newest fad for removing weak educators is to fire the entire staff of a school.  While this may give the appearance of progress, it merely serves to rob districts of their competent teachers as well as their worst.  And most of all it does not make anyone better.    Schools with great teachers succeed.  But acquiring the best teachers is only part of the solution.  Other than the recent mass firings, when was the last time you knew a teacher who was terminated for ineptitude?  And how long did it take the system to remove that individual from the classroom?  In my forty years of teaching I saw two teachers removed for ineffectiveness.  And in each case it took more than five years of diligent work to make these changes occur.  What is needed is an evaluation system that improves good teachers and dismisses poor ones in an expedient manner. Great teachers make great schools; bad teachers give unmotivated students credibility. 

Increase the role of teachers as leaders.  Creating school policy should include a significant input from the entire staff.  While the roles of department chairs should be strengthened, all staff members should be given an opportunity to have an integral involvement in all components of the school.  Collaborative evaluations including other teachers should become common place.  A building’s philosophy should bubble up from every part of the culture not trickle down exclusively from the administrative wing.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:00 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

How many times have you heard Mel Riddile or I say that “given adequate time and assistance, every child can learn?”  Too many times to count, I am sure.  Why?  Mel Riddile sincerely believes that the key to success in education is maximizing contact time between teachers and students.  He even once bought t-shirts for his entire faculty with the statement “It’s about Time” emblazoned on the pockets.  And now there is more concrete evidence of the accuracy of these convictions.  A recent Washington Post editorial has shown that there is a clear link between student success and the use of increased class time and the KIPP program.  According to the paper:

“A NEW REPORT documents again that middle school students in the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) outperform their counterparts in traditional public schools -- and debunks some of the arguments often used to discount KIPP's success. One reason KIPP students learn more is that they are in school more.”

It is critical to note that the mere extension of time is not by itself a guarantee of improved student achievement.  What KIPP is doing and what others should emulate is that they are using their time in a far more efficient manner.  Some of their innovations would not be possible in the public sector due to the cost involved.  Their school day is from 7:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., which is at least two hours more than most systems.  Many KIPP schools have Saturday sessions.  In today’s economic climate, the funds needed to have similar programs in public education are, unfortunately, not available.  (That situation will be the focus of a future blog.)  But the one KIPP innovation that deserves to be emulated is their approach to the summer.  Instead of having the vast amount of down time associated with the majority of public schools, the KIPP centers have placed several weeks of mandatory instruction right in the middle of the traditional break.

Inertia can be unproductive

American schools continue to cling to an agrarian calendar that was far more appropriate when our children actually planted the crops in the spring, tended to them in the summer and assisted in the fall harvest.  While most institutions have moved beyond the 19^th century, education, at least in structuring its calendar, is hanging onto the good old days.  And the public seems content with the status quo.  We have replaced working in the fields with trips to the beach, part time jobs, camps, and amusement parks.  In the state of Virginia there is a practice commonly known as “The Kings Dominion Rule” which says that public schools cannot open until after Labor Day in order to ensure both the availability of a young work force and the possibility for families to visit the various state theme parks through the first weekend in September.  Combining this statute with a fluke in the calendar and in the summer of 2009 most students in the Commonwealth had twelve weeks without school.  Throw in standardized testing for the last few weeks of school and students are out of contact with direct instruction for more than 25% of the year.  Is it any wonder that the first month of most school years is spent on review?

Finding Solutions

The difference in contact time between typical public education and KIPP is immense.  The Post estimates it at about 600 more hours per year.  While it would be unrealistic to try to narrow that gap at this time, currently many districts are headed in the wrong direction and actually exacerbating the problem.  To save money, calendars are being cut, classes are being enlarged and programs are being cancelled.  In many districts, remediation is being built into the day either through expanded lunch periods or separate periods, thus further reducing actual class time. 

There are, however, steps that can be taken to better utilize the time currently available.  These would not cost additional funds but would require courageous and determined leadership to break some long-held habits. 

Create a 12-month school year.  Put down the hoe and pick up a book.  Or rather, leave the beach and head for the classroom.  Create four ten-week grading periods.  Place breaks of two weeks in the fall and spring, three weeks in winter and five weeks in the summer.  Intervention sessions can be incorporated in the shorter breaks as well as teacher workdays.  Most summer schools have been truncated to less than five weeks so they can still be available if needed.

Schools should consider the 4x4 plan.  Instead of having six or seven classes, offer students four classes in each of the ten-week sessions.  These classes would meet in a full block every day thus completing a semester of work each session.  This change would allow students to enroll in eight courses in a calendar year.  The blocks would be slightly shorter than other schedules but by meeting every day review would be significantly reduced and ultimately create more class time for original work.

Every minute of the school day should be used for learning.  If the day begins at 7:20 and ends at 2:05 every minute should be utilized to educate.  Pep rallies, class and club meetings, and remediation will be held after school.  If they are important enough to disrupt teaching, they should be important enough to stay after to attend.  Creating a culture that believes that school activities can be consummated after the last class expands the day for everyone. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 12:27 PM | Permalink

The Public Policy Institute of California has published a report evaluating the success of a comprehensive literacy initiative implemented in the San Diego Unified School District, the second largest district in the state, between 2000-2005. While the school district employed different strategies at the elementary, middle, and high school levels, professional development for teachers was consistent at all levels. The results outlined in the report carry important implications for secondary leaders who seek to improve student performance by improving literacy skills.

Time – Increased time devoted to reading resulted in significant improvement at the elementary and middle school levels, but not at high school. An extended school year at the elementary level and extended-length English classes at the middle level resulted in significant student gains. The study did find that high school students who participated in triple-length English classes were more likely to be promoted to the next grade but were not prepared to participate in college-level courses. The extra time spent on reading did not diminish performance in other courses nor were students discouraged as evidenced by lower graduation rates.

Professional Development – The study found that the investment in professional development for teachers was a key factor in improving student achievement.

Fidelity of Implementation – The study pointed out “a key aspect of San Diego’s reform program was that it was comprehensive and coherent. Interventions often were applied in two or more of the elementary, middle, and high school grade spans. Further, professional development was delivered uniformly, with a single focused goal, to teachers throughout the district.”

Change takes time! – The report emphasizes the need for policy makers and districts to be patient. Many of the reforms took years to bear fruit. For example, peer coaching did not result in improvement in the early stages of the program, but did in the remaining years. Apparently, this is a message that has been missed by most school reformers.

Implications for school leaders

When it comes to improving literacy skills, the longer we wait to intervene, the more difficult it is. Elementary and middle school students can catch up if given more time and better-trained teachers. However, high school students are often so far behind that extended English classes are not sufficient.

We learned from practice that students who do not come from language-enriched homes needed direct, explicit literacy instruction each year or their skills did not improve. Our school had a large number of under-resourced students who had not had reading instruction since the 3rd grade. As a result, we had many students who were reading at the 4th, 5th and 6th grade levels.

In that most high school texts are written at the 11th grade level, we had to help students make five or six years of progress just to be able to do high school work. When our students entered the 9th grade lacking literacy skills, our goal became graduation not college-readiness.

High school students who lack literacy skills are critically ill education patients who need intensive interventions taught by trained specialists in addition to a comprehensive school wide approach that supports the work they do in the intervention classes. Even in the best of circumstances, it takes years to bring students up to level.

High school principals and teachers are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Only 20% of students arrive in the 9th grade on-target for postsecondary education. Yet, high schools are held accountable for preparing all students to be college-, career-, and workplace-ready, and, according to the current reform models, they have one to two years in which to do so.

Responsible change takes hard work, patience and time!

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:53 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

The solution was a blending of one of those highly beneficial “little things” with the proven advantages of increased time and student success.  Mel Riddile in his role as a high school principal was determined to provide his teachers and students more time to prepare for the state of Virginia’s Standards of Learning (SOL) exams that were required for graduation.  It is a story that deserves to be told because it demonstrates the difficulties that can be encountered when trying to implement new ideas in education.  It is a vivid illustration that making such changes requires courageous and determined leadership.

An Arcane System

For decades Virginia has had the quaint belief that the school year should not commence until after Labor Day.  This practice known as “The Kings Dominion Rule” is primarily the result of lobbying by the vacation industry.  This policy created a school year in 2009-10 that began on September 8 and ended on June 24.  The number of scheduled days (180) was similar to many states.  But due to the decision to delay the start of classes until after the first Monday in September, these students were placed at a serious disadvantage. The most glaring discrepancy revolved around the Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) exams.  These tests are strictly administered on dates determined by AP and IB.  Consequently last year any district in the country that began classes two weeks, three weeks or a month prior to September 8, gave every one of their students that much additional class time to prepare for the same competitive test with the ones in Virginia. 

Finding a Better Way

An obvious solution to this disparity is to start school earlier.  The question is how could this be accomplished?  More than a decade ago Mel Riddile began to look for the answer.  In previous years our district had discussed the possibility of requesting an exemption to the “After Labor Day” rule from the state. On at least one occasion they were given the opportunity to do so, but declined.  Thus, it was apparent exceptions could be made and after a bit of research it was discovered that more than 50% of the districts in the state were quietly beginning classes one to two weeks prior to the traditional starting date.  The implications of this discovery went well beyond the AP and IB exams.  The SOL testing program had set testing “windows” each year and beginning school earlier in the year would give students additional time to prepare for those exams as well.  While an extra two weeks of instruction for the advanced students was helpful, ten more school days for students in the core SOL courses could well be the difference between success and failure.  This concept, which would trade two weeks of school that would occur after the testing for two weeks of instruction prior to the exams was greeted with strong enthusiasm from several teachers who were consulted on the idea.  The quest was about to begin.

Hurdle after Hurdle after Hurdle

The plan was not drastic.  It did not add school days to the year—it was to start and end school two weeks earlier.  But in order to make this somewhat modest adjustment Mel was required to jump through numerous educational hoops.  He would have to petition the local school board to receive permission to then get the approval of the faculty and the community to the proposed change.  He would also have to convince the middle school feeder to agree to the same adjustments.  

The explanation to the faculty included the following points.  In addition to the increased class time prior to the exams, it was noted that a large portion of the student body and staff was in the building by that time anyway.  Every fall sport began practices prior to school as did the band, drill team, newspaper staff, etc.  Anyone who walked through the school on a typical August 15 would feel as though the session had already begun.  Moreover, any experienced teacher was well aware of the decline in student performance that occurred every year with the influx of warm weather after the first few weeks of May.  But old, entrenched educational habits do not die easily.  While nearly everyone clearly understood the academic advantages to having a two-week head start, the concept of the school year beginning in mid-August was difficult for some to accept.   Only after endless meetings and long explanations did Mel get the support of the community and staff.  Then he had to travel to the state school board to get their okay.  Eventually they agreed to the idea but only for a limited amount of time.

A Few Setbacks, a Bunch of Gains

The district did not make the transition easy.  They required the school to have the same end dates for grading periods as the other schools.  Thus the first quarter was significantly longer and the last very truncated.   In-service programs prior to the start of the year were not made available to the faculty unless they took leave during the first few weeks of school.  Priority processing for summer school results was not given.  But the overall positive impact was easy to see.

It was quickly apparent that starting school after Labor Day had no magical qualities.  But by the second week the school was running smoothly and the staff began to appreciate the advantages to implementing lesson plans earlier in the year.  Teachers would consistently report covering more curriculum and having more review time than in previous years.  And the fact that the school year ended on June 3 was a bonus.

And Then It Was Gone

There is no way to quantitatively measure the benefits of the two-week early start.  Perhaps the best way to determine the positive impact occurred after Mel had left the school.  The program had been extended several times past the original termination date given by the state.  The new principal, however, was not committed to the idea and her perceived disadvantages were cited on a regular basis.  Even so, the staff was polled on several occasions and each time the vast majority of the votes were in favor of keeping the early start.  But with the loss of Mel’s intensity and tenacity, the concept was scrapped in 2009, ostensibly due to district budget concerns, which were never fully explained.  How this change will affect student success should be very interesting.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:52 AM | Permalink

We have devoted a number of articles to the concept of TIME and learning. Both The Teacher Leader and I learned through practice that, of all the ways to improve student achievement—time, setting (class size), methods, curriculum--time may be the most critical. Schools often don’t or can’t control the curriculum. Class size has to be really small to make a difference, and, in tight budget times, is probably unrealistic. Improving teaching methods takes years and is a never-ending process. However, increasing learning time holds the greatest promise for immediate improvements in student performance

Researchers at the Johns Hopkins National Summer Learning Association believe that two-thirds of the achievement gap can be directly attributed to summer learning loss. While schools are being shut down, reconstituted, and principals and teachers fired for low student achievement, we continue to ignore the research because summer learning is not glamorous and it is not a “silver bullet.”

In “The Case Against Summer Vacation,” Time Magazine’s August 2 issue jumps on the bandwagon. Here are some highlights from the article:

• Part of the problem is one of perception. “We associate the school year with oppression and the summer months with liberty.”
• “American students are competing with children around the globe who may be spending four weeks longer in school each year, larking through summer is a luxury we can't afford.”
• “Deprived of healthy stimulation, millions of low-income kids lose a significant amount of what they learn during the school year. Call it "summer learning loss," as the academics do, or "the summer slide," but by any name summer is among the most pernicious — if least acknowledged — causes of achievement gaps in America's schools.”
• Children with access to high-quality experiences can exercise their minds and bodies at sleep-away camp, on family vacations, in museums and libraries and enrichment classes. Meanwhile, children without resources languish on street corners or in front of glowing screens. By the time the bell rings on a new school year, the poorer kids have fallen weeks, if not months, behind. And even well-off American students may be falling behind their peers around the world.”
• “Researchers at Johns Hopkins University concluded that while students made similar progress during the school year, regardless of economic status, the better-off kids held steady or continued to advance during the summer — while disadvantaged students fell back. By the end of grammar school, low-income students had fallen nearly three grade levels behind. By ninth grade, roughly two-thirds of the learning gap separating income groups could be blamed on summer learning loss.”
• Across the country, there is a “growing movement to stop the summer slide by coordinating, expanding, and improving summer enrichment programs — especially for low-income children.”

Let me say this one more time, if you hold learning time constant, you are effectively ensuring that a significant portion of your students, mostly poor and disadvantaged, will fail. By failing to provide adequate learning time, you have built failure into your system.

Sumer learning must become a normal part of schooling, not “The Grinch That Stole Summer Vacation."

It’s About Time!

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

How many times have you heard Mel Riddile or I say that “given adequate time and assistance, every child can learn?”  Too many times to count, I am sure.  Why?  Mel Riddile sincerely believes that the key to success in education is maximizing contact time between teachers and students.  He even once bought t-shirts for his entire faculty with the statement “It’s about Time” emblazoned on the pockets.  And now there is more concrete evidence of the accuracy of these convictions.  A recent Washington Post editorial has shown that there is a clear link between student success and the use of increased class time and the KIPP program.  According to the paper:

“A NEW REPORT documents again that middle school students in the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) outperform their counterparts in traditional public schools -- and debunks some of the arguments often used to discount KIPP's success. One reason KIPP students learn more is that they are in school more.”

It is critical to note that the mere extension of time is not by itself a guarantee of improved student achievement.  What KIPP is doing and what others should emulate is that they are using their time in a far more efficient manner.  Some of their innovations would not be possible in the public sector due to the cost involved.  Their school day is from 7:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., which is at least two hours more than most systems.  Many KIPP schools have Saturday sessions.  In today’s economic climate the funds necessary to have similar programs in public education is, unfortunately, impossible.  (That situation will be the focus of a future blog.)  But the one KIPP innovation that deserves to be emulated is their approach to the summer.  Instead of having the vast amount of down time associated with the majority of public schools, the KIPP centers have placed several weeks of mandatory instruction right in the middle of the traditional break.

Inertia can be unproductive

American schools continue to cling to an agrarian calendar that was far more appropriate when our children actually planted the crops in the spring, tended to them in the summer and assisted in the fall harvest.  While most institutions have moved beyond the 19^th century, education, at least in structuring its calendar, is hanging onto the good old days.  And the public seems content with the status quo.  We have replaced working in the fields with trips to the beach, part time jobs, camps, and amusement parks.  In the state of Virginia there is a practice commonly known as “The Kings Dominion Rule,” which says that public schools cannot open until after Labor Day in order to ensure both the availability of a young work force and the possibility for families to visit the various state theme parks through the first weekend in September.  Combining this statute with a fluke in the calendar and in the summer of 2009 most students in the Commonwealth had twelve weeks without school.  Throw in standardized testing for the last few weeks of school and students are out of contact with direct instruction for more than 25% of the year.  Is it any wonder that the first month of most school years is spent on review?

Finding Solutions

The difference in contact time between typical public education and KIPP is immense.  The Post estimates it at about 600 more hours per year.  While it would be unrealistic to try to narrow that gap at this time, currently many districts are headed in the wrong direction and actually exacerbating the problem.  To save money, calendars are being cut, classes are being enlarged and programs are being cancelled.  In many districts remediation is being built into the day either through expanded lunch periods or separate periods, thus further reducing actual class time. 

There are, however, steps that can be taken to better utilize the time currently available.  These would not cost additional funds but would require courageous and determined leadership to break some long-held habits. 

Create a 12-month school year.  Put down the hoe and pick up a book.  Or rather, leave the beach and head for the classroom.  Create four ten-week grading periods.  Schedule breaks of two weeks in the fall and spring, three weeks in winter and five weeks in the summer.  Intervention sessions can be incorporated in the shorter breaks as well as teacher workdays.  Most summer schools have been truncated to less than five weeks so they can still be available if needed.

Schools should consider the 4x4 plan.  Instead of having six or seven classes, offer students four classes in each of the ten-week sessions.  These classes would meet in a full block every day thus completing a semester of work each session.  This change would allow students to enroll in eight courses in a calendar year.  The blocks would be slightly shorter than other schedules but by meeting every day review would be significantly reduced and ultimately create more class time for original work.

Every minute of the school day should be used for learning.  If the day begins at 7:20 and ends at 2:05 every minute should be utilized to educate.  Pep rallies, class and club meetings, and remediation will be held after school.  If they are important enough to disrupt teaching, they should be important enough to stay after to attend.  Creating a culture that believes that school activities can be consummated after the last class expands the day for everyone. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:19 AM | Permalink

“When you give kids more time, you are watering down the courses.”—Unnamed Deputy Superintendent

Jay Mathews of the Washington Post would say that this “old-fashioned attitude turns out to be educationally bankrupt.” I would even go a step further. If you hold learning time constant you are building failure into your school and your school system. The fact is that students have learning differences. They learn different subjects at different rates. Forcing all students down the same assembly line at the same rate only ensures multiple failures.

Charter schools have learned the lesson. Increase learning time and student performance will improve. Hold learning time constant and there will be a significant number of students who fail and fall behind. KIPP schools require students to attend school on Saturday and for three weeks in the summer. Students in charter schools attend summer learning sessions at significantly higher rates than their public school counterparts.

I learned some difficult lessons the hard way. First, summer learning loss was undermining all our hard work. Our teachers became discouraged because we were spending far too much time re-teaching students in the beginning of the school year. Second, no matter how effective we made our professional development activities, we simply could not improve teaching methods or make classes small enough to compensate for the need of some students for extended time. In fact, of the three variables that we could control—time, setting, and methods—time was by far the most impactful. Don’t get me wrong. Schools need to address all three variables. Smaller classes for ninth graders and improved teaching methods made a big difference, but we learned that, unless we gave students the time they needed to learn and the teachers the time they needed to teach, student performance would only show moderate gains. Time gave us “quick-wins” in the short-term while we built the collective capacity of our staff to meet the needs of all of our students over the long-term.

We talk a lot about the need for a customized approach for each and every student. We talk even more about differentiating instruction to meet the needs of individual learners. We read articles about learning and the brain. We discuss multiple intelligences. However, when it comes down to it, we don’t really do what we must do to improve student achievement. Extending learning time by offering students multiple time frames to complete courses, after school programs, Saturday instruction, and summer learning opportunities, is inconvenient, complicated, and downright hard work.

Let’s look at the issue of time from another perspective. Suppose that your school was informed that your students would have one hour less than all other schools across the country to complete the SAT or ACT exam. How would you or your parents respond? I would expect that the response would be one of disbelief and outrage. We want our students to have the time they need to complete the exam. What about other peoples’ children? Shouldn’t they be treated the same way that we would want our own children treated? Shouldn’t they have every chance to succeed?

Along the way, I learned another, even more important, lesson. The inconvenient things and the hardest things were usually the most important. In fact, just about everything we did that worked for students required hard work. None of the strategies that worked for students were the easiest. Take it from someone who learned the hard way, following the path of least resistance, searching for the silver bullet, will only lead to frustration and failure. Nobody ever promised us that doing the right thing for our students would be easy. It’s about time!

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:12 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In September of 1968, as I prepared to face my first Algebra 1 class, an administrator told me the following, “Since you are the first new math teacher in the building in four years we are giving you all of the students that failed Algebra 1 last year.  By doing that it makes the master schedule easier.”  He then added, “By the way, more kids at this school fail Algebra 1 than any other course.”  And then there was the closer.  “Heck that is true not only at this school but in the entire district and for that matter the country”.

Sadly, though the need for success in high school math is even more imperative in our increasingly technical world, it appears little has changed in terms of the pitfalls associated with this gateway mathematical course.  When taught with the rigor necessary to adequately prepare students for the courses that follow, students continue to struggle. One of the most common prescriptions given by educational leaders is to move the course earlier in a student’s career.  My last post revealed a number of statistics that indicated the shortcomings inherent in such an approach. Now I would like to look at the potential damage that can be experienced both directly and indirectly to students placed prematurely into Algebra 1.

Collateral Damage

Increasing the number of students taking Algebra 1 in the eighth grade will lead to certain expected outcomes.  As this proportion expands there will be a corresponding rise in the number of students taking the class in the seventh grade.  In my former district from 2005 to 2008 there was a 600% increase (120 to over 700) in seventh grade Algebra I students.   While unquestionably there are some students ready for this level of advancement, the danger for any students misplaced in this group is catastrophic.  Follow the natural progression for such a student.  Honors Geometry is taken in the eighth grade and then in their first year at the high school these students are enrolled in Honors Algebra 2.  The biggest obstacle to overcome here may not be the actual math material.  The larger concern is that they have learned their first two years of high school math academically isolated in the middle school.   In their first high school math class, Honors Algebra 2, most of the students will be sophomores who, for the most part, while taking their second high school honors math class, have also experienced a full year of Honors English 9, Honors World History 1, and Honors Biology or Chemistry – courses that are unavailable to middle school students. For students who were advanced through the math sequence too quickly, and not simultaneously taking other honors courses, the sudden surge of academic rigor is too often crushing.

On track to nowhere

Another group of students who will suffer academic problems as a result of the rush to push more and more students ahead in the math sequence are those few individuals who are deemed unable to be advanced in such a manner.  With the ever enlarging percentage of students taking Algebra 1 prior to high school, this small but critical group of students is being isolated into an academic niche from which there is little chance of escape.  While all educators decry the concept of tracking, these students languish further and further behind the mainstream and soon define that principle.  Many of these students are struggling with English, have special needs or are dealing with emotional or physical problems.  Consequently, while the vast majority of students, ready or not, are being pushed into a faster and in many cases inappropriate track, these students are truly left behind, sitting in class with no positive peer role models for academic success, little rigor to improve their classroom skills and the obvious and sometimes irreversible label of being an unsuccessful student. 

The teacher’s perspective

When is the best time for enrolling students in Algebra 1?  Fundamentally it is a common sense solution devoid of percentage goals, rhetoric and the blind belief that faster is better for everyone.  Algebra 1 should be offered to those students who demonstrate the mental and emotional maturity, curriculum background and basic skills necessary for true success in a rigorous, first-year Algebra course.  For a significant number of our students that readiness occurs in the eighth grade.  For a very small part of that group it may well be appropriate even earlier.  But Honors Algebra 1 must be a tough, legitimate course worthy of its label.  For those who are not placed in these classes the courses taught in middle schools should be honed with increased rigor to prepare these students for mastery of the subject in grade nine.  Equally important is that students who do take Algebra 1 early but do not demonstrate total mastery of the course should repeat it again the following year to ensure that they will have an opportunity for success in the future.  Ironically, moving students faster and promoting them without a solid foundation in the fundamentals ultimately forces subsequent math classes to be less comprehensive and challenging. 

Clearly this result could not be the given objective of the school system’s policy-makers.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:43 AM | Permalink

At a time when the focus is on firing principals and teachers, here is an easy way to raise student performance by as much as 10%. Your start time dramatically impacts academic achievement, behavior, motivation, and student engagement. This video gives us all something to think about.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Education Week and the Washington Post report that a study of KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) charter middle schools (grades 5-8) revealed “impressive” gains in math and reading scores in half of the KIPP schools studied. Because the study required three years of data, only 22 of 91 KIPP schools were included in the study and half of those studied achieved the impressive gains.

Results

The results of the study indicate that, in half the KIPP schools, for every three years that they were enrolled, students gained an additional 1.2 years in math and .75 years in reading. Experts believe that the math gains are significant.

Here is what you need to know about KIPP schools:

Additional Instructional Time

• KIPP students spend 68% more time in core subjects than their public school counterparts.
• Their school day is 25% longer.
• KIPP students attend school every other Saturday.
• Students attend school 3 weeks in the summer.

Required Parent Involvement

• Students and parents must fill out an application and be interviewed.
• Parents must attend required meetings.

Student Mobility

• KIPP schools do not replace students who move or who leave school for other reasons. So, they have significantly lower student mobility than surrounding schools.
• KIPP schools have high student attrition rates than surrounding schools.
• 10% of the schools have had their charters removed by KIPP due to low student performance.

Mastery

• KIPP schools do not hesitate to retain students who have not mastered course content, and, as a result, they have high retention rates.

Demographics

• KIPP schools have significantly fewer specials education and ELL students than surrounding schools.

A Principal’s Perspective

The ability to select and dismiss students combined with required parent involvement and dramatically increased instructional time may not be applicable to cash poor public schools. However, KIPP schools reinforce a number of key factors that must be present in order to improve the performance of each and every student.

• Clear vision for the success of all students
• A focus on mastery of course content supported by strong literacy and math skills
• A growth mindset that reinforces the belief that work and effort create ability
• The freedom to act in the best interest of their students without district or state interference
• Professional development efforts directed at building the collective capacity of the entire staff
• Alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment
• Defined instructional practices utilized by all teachers
• Flexible time frames provide all students the opportunity to master course content

KIPP schools reinforce two key principles of raising student performance:

1. Given time, all students can learn to high levels.
2. Effort and work raise achievement.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

There was a time not that long ago that the mere mention of summer school sent my fellow principals and me looking for an exit. Our district would rotate summer school sites from school to school and principals would devise every type of excuse to keep from being one of those sites. The idea of having someone invade our building for an entire summer was unthinkable. Having a different administrative and teaching staff in our house was viewed as a punishment.

Then accountability hit. The focus shifted from what adults wanted to what our students needed. Our school was diverse and poor. Over time, we discovered that our students could achieve at high levels if they were given the additional time they needed to master course content. Conversely, if we held learning time constant for all students, we would ensure that a significant proportion of them would fail.

It turned out that learning time was more critical for our students than improved teaching methods or smaller classes. That is not to say that methods or class setting are not important, but, for our poor, under-resourced students, learning time proved to be the most important factor. We learned that improving instruction was an ongoing process that would never end, but, if some of our students learned some subjects at different rates, improved methods could only go so far.

As a result of what we had learned about instructional time and student success, I did a complete about face on the issue of summer school. The turning point for me came when an analysis of our data indicated that our students were actually losing ground over the summer. All the hard work and progress we made during the regular school year was eaten away by ten weeks of summer learning loss.

In fact, I became such a strong believer in varying learning time that I was willing to publicly challenge our superintendent by saying, “Just give me the time that our students spend riding the bus to and from central summer school sites, and we will double their achievement. If our students could be in our school with our teachers during the summer, we will not only increase enrollment, but we will significantly increase student achievement.”

To my surprise he said yes. Not surprisingly, our student achievement skyrocketed. Instead of 10% of our students attending summer school, we had 30% attending. Instead of our second language students losing English language skills over the summer, they actually gained in English acquisition. Instead of summer school being an afterthought, it became an integral part of our program because it met the needs of our student in the following ways:

Catch Up – Students, particularly our second language students, needed extra time to acquire English language skills. Thus, they tended to need more time to fulfill requirements for graduation. Even though these students were fluent in two languages, they viewed themselves as failures if they did not graduate when they were eighteen. Summer school afforded these students a way to squeeze five years of high school into four calendar years.

Extra Time – Some students, particularly many of our math students needed an extra semester to master algebra. In our state, all students had to pass Algebra I and the Algebra I end-of-course exam in order to graduate. Allowing students the option of completing a course in summer school dramatically increased the success rate of our students without lowering standards.

Make Up – We set a goal that all ninth graders would graduate to tenth grade. We had learned that reducing failure and the need to repeat courses was a win-win for everyone. However, no matter how hard we worked to keep students from falling behind, some did. In addition, many students who had transferred into our school had failed one or more core courses in their previous school. For these students, summer school was a necessity.

Credit Recovery - Summer school was the keystone of our credit recovery efforts. The problem is that, in a state with end-of-course exams, our students had to do more than complete a course by putting in seat time. They actually had to learn something and demonstrate that learning on a state exam.

Get ahead – Many of our students were schooled in other countries and lost a year or more converting into our system. In addition, some students were scheduled to return to their native land and needed to graduate in less than four years. Our high student mobility meant that many students lost learning time and credits moving from school to school. Summer school offered these students the opportunity to graduate early and to move on to college.

Enrichment – Summer school provided opportunities for students with crowded schedules to take elective or enrichment classes during the summer.

The Bottom Line

If we are really serious about raising student achievement, we must address variations in learning time for our students. Holding time constant guarantees that achievement will vary widely, particularly for under-resourced students. Making learning time the variable will ensure that we move much closer to learning becoming a constant for each and every student.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

You’ve heard the old adage, if we keep doing what we’re doing, we’ll keep getting the same results. In the same way, if we keep holding learning time constant, we will continue to have significant numbers of our students, who simply need more time to master some subjects, fail. It is time to rethink our views on summer school and maybe to rethink our approaches to summer learning as well. “In many ways, the summer months are the last frontier of school reform.”

A recent Education Week commentary may help school leaders change their opinion on summer school and summer learning. The authors point out that “the literature is clear and compelling on the fact that summer is a season of huge risks and setback for low-income youths.”

The Facts

• Two-thirds of the achievement gap in reading is directly related to unequal summer learning opportunities.
• Secretary Duncan views summer learning loss as “devastating.”
• In one study, low-income students lost ground in reading each summer compared with their higher-income peers, who actually made progress.
• The accumulated summer learning loss over eleven successive summers played a big part in determining whether a student graduated and whether the student attended post-secondary education and training.

The Bottom Line

• We don’t have an achievement gap. We have a learning time gap.
• The research is clear, given time, students can learn. The question then is, who will give students the time they need?

Next: Summer School – Part 2

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:53 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In his post, “Control or Cooperation”, Mel Riddile created a significant amount of discussion when he declared that there are two viable relationships for the administrative and teaching staffs.  From his perspective, school leaders can choose either to demand control with a subsequent loss of cooperation or pursue additional cooperation while accepting a lesser degree of control.  Riddile argues that the latter is the far better direction for educational success.  An important group shares his view.  A recent article by Nick Anderson in the Washington Post, “Survey: Supportive leadership helps retain top teachers” reports that when 40,000 teachers were asked to assess what was more important to them increased pay or more administrative support the results were surprisingly lopsided.  Two out of every three of those surveyed believed that the positive assistance of administrators was more important than the amount of money in their paycheck.  This preference for backing over bucks reinforces Riddile’s assessment.

Two More Important “C” Words           

While I strongly agree with Riddile, I also believe there are two other words that need to be brought into the conversation.  Those words are “coordination” and “communication”.   One of the greatest obstacles to synchronizing the work of the administrative and teaching teams is the fact that the two groups operate on inherently different timetables.   This disconnect is especially true at schools that are on “block” schedules.  The different days are usually designated by two colors such as “green” and “blue”.  The problem is quite simple—while the “color” of the day is critical to the teacher it is of little relevance to an administrator. For the vast majority of classroom teachers a green day is very different from a blue one.  Weeks in advance lesson plans are developed, tests are scheduled, and assignments are made with the specific dates in mind.

A Cold Front Collides With a Warm One

This different view of the school day needs to be taken into consideration by the administrative team.  Earlier this year a teacher complained to me that when he looked at his school calendar he noticed that within the first twelve weeks there were four different days when the bell schedule was to be changed resulting in the loss of two to three hours of class time.  While all of the dates had a valid reason for the adjustment the problem was that all four occurred on the same color day.  Later he realized that both the fall pep rally and class meetings were on the same block day as the other four.  When he brought this problem to the attention of an assistant principal he was told that it was too late to change.   This example brings us back to the original premise:  attaining cooperation also requires coordination and communication.

Establishing the school calendar may be the responsibility of the administrative team but they are not the group most directly affected by those decisions.  Consequently, they need to aggressively solicit the input of the teaching staff.   When there is a complaint they need to listen and learn.  If no change can be made the reasons need to be given in detail along with a promise to avoid such problems in the future. 

How important are issues like the one just described?  Polling of tens of thousands of teachers made it very clear that the vast majority view the positive support of the administrative team as more important than an increase in the money in their pocket.  Could there be a clearer mandate for making every effort to improve cooperation through communication and coordination at all levels?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:04 PM | Permalink